Where is this contradicted?
Here:
Posted on 09/16/2007 3:45:54 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sorry, David.
The only one I can think of was made by David Hannum, although another person got all the credit.
Cheers!
“including the “modern orthodoxy” that only genes are important:”
Orthodoxy? In Science? Nooo, that never happens!
DLR:
You and your cohorts will never accept what research creationists do perform because they hold to young-earth creationism, which disagrees with old-earth naturalism, and automatically makes you dismiss anything they do.
As far as I can tell, they reject the Young-Earth part of Young-Earth creationism, because they have a number of converging lines of evidence and/or reasoning, from independent fields, whose practitioners do not otherwise collude with each other, all of which are most consistent with an old earth. The evidence might be made consistent with a young earth, but not trivially: and only be severely straining or ignoring other explanations that handle all other kinds of things quite easily, and even elegantly. Not all of the scientists reject God, or the supernatural, but they don't look to God as the proximate cause of all events -- even if there are armies of angels directing each quark, each atom, every planet, the natural events act so reproducibly (under controlled conditions) that you can ignore the angel's contributions during your calculations...
b_sharp:
For all of your dislike of 'naturalism' as a philosophy, which I assume you believe pervades all of scientific investigation, naturalism as a methodology was developed by Christians as a way to pull information from the natural world about how God accomplished what he accomplished. Those same techniques are used not only by secular scientists but by your mistakenly trusted Creation scientists, albeit quite superficially. Part of methodology is the assumption that God would not 'play' with experiments or change the laws of nature capriciously.
Thunderous applause!
Of course, turning that around, maybe God *does* sometimes interfere arbitrarily with things -- but the problem with accepting that possibility is that it interferes with your ability to rely upon or to interpret any results with confidence: especially any seemingly anomalous results which are the ones which so often lead to progress and to improvement of current models.
If every exception you see gives rise immediately to the claim "GodDidIt!"TM, you're not going to advance science very far.
The main difference between Creation scientists and secular scientists, who both rely on physical evidence, both directly observed (seldom) and inferred from the directly observed (most frequently), is that the secular scientist requires an hypothesis to fit the observations whereas the creation scientist requires the observation to fit the hypothesis. Creation scientists spend their time fitting the world into their world view. This bias is admitted freely on many Creationist web sites, as Cman has tried to get you to understand. The modification of data, failure to perform falsifying tests, inability to make predictions, and the extensive modification of physical laws, all to fit a preconceived notion, is not science.
Even better!
If a secular scientist were to do the same thing, his work would be analzed, considered and rejected for failure to follow the methodology necessary to remove as much of the normal human bias from his work.
Vot is diss "analzed" ??
The critiques would be harsh, blunt and straight forward, because that is how scientists are, but they would be accurate. If he continued to push his work, without modifying his hypothesis to follow evidence, he would be ridiculed and eventually laughed at by his peers, and rightly so. If you were to run across a person, hit on the head by an apple, claiming that the sky is falling, you would use a similar process. Eventually you would either try to get the person help for his mental problem or you would avoid him in future.
I think you might be leaving out one thing here, b_sharp.
I don't claim to speak for Dave, but I have talked to other folks...for some people, the "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" is a fairly accurate summary of their position. If God exists, then presumably if God told you something, it must be true: and anything God told you would supercede the ordinary rules of evidence.
What seems to get skipped here is the effect of cultural differences, translation, and the like, on the Genesis stories; and the rejection of the possibility that Genesis might have been given to instruct in moral truths, not geological or biological ones.
And on the other hand, there is the difficulty (if you allow the supernatural in the door) of unambiguously, and disinterestedly, reconciling and distinguishing competing claims of the supernatural -- how can you know which ones to accept, or to reject? They *all* violate the "laws of nature".
Very good summary!
Cheers!
The author is incorrect in his use of the word "causing."
Bingo!
The article in question from ‘creationsafari’that announces “Genetics “Central Dogma” Dead” concedes that...
“It remains indisputable that DNA codes for proteins via messenger RNA, and that proteins perform the major structural and functional operations of the cell.”
The finding of massive amounts of regulatory RNA (the only actual scientific meat among the rhetorical straw men) raised this speculation by Patrick Barry author of ‘Genome 2.0’ as quoted by the article in creationsafari...
“In the established definition, a gene is a discrete region of DNA that produces a single, identifiable protein in a cell. But the functioning of a protein often depends on a host of RNAs that control its activity. If a stretch of DNA known to be a protein-coding gene also produces regulatory RNAs essential for several other genes, is it somehow a part of all those other genes as well?”
Hardly an overturning of the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. It is a very interesting finding and it is estimated that these regulatory elements that show evolutionary conservation between lineages like genes (indicating that they have function and are under selective constraint) make up as much of the human genome as the genes themselves (3%).
>>The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology is that DNA is the template for a messenger RNA molecule that codes for a protein.
Nice spin in your comment. But the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology asserted that DNA’s only use was to code for proteins, that each protein was a consecutive sequence on one rung of DNA’s double-helix structure, and that anything else in DNA is extraneous.
“The central dogma of molecular biology deals with the detailed residue-by-residue transfer of sequential information. It states that such information cannot be transferred back from protein to either protein or nucleic acid.” - Crick, F. (1970): Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. Nature 227, 561-563
The new paradigm dubbed “Genome 2.0” is that coding regions can be non-contiguous, overlapping stretches on both sides of the DNA helix, and the regulatory non-coding sequences are far more important than the coding regions. Consider the following from the article:
“Offering a radical new conception of the genome, Gingeras proposes shifting the focus away from protein-coding genes. Instead, he suggests that the fundamental units of the genome could be defined as functional RNA transcripts.”
There is no protein coding in the new definition. There is only “functional RNA transcripts”. The need for this new definition shows a severe breakdown in the original Central Dogma concept. And far from RNA transcripts being the tiny percentage of the genome that codes for protein:
“The results from ENCODE were even more striking. In the slice of DNA studied in that project, between 74 percent and 93 percent of the genome produced RNA transcripts.”
Biologists have known for years that many DNA sequences have a function that doesn’t involve coding for a protein. They even have names for them such as ‘promoter region’, ‘repressor regions’, ‘telomeres’, ‘centromeres’, etc etc.
Do you have evidence that information can go back from protein to nucleic acid? Francis Crick’s quote is still correct. RNA viruses with reverse transcriptase make an interesting adjunct to the Central Dogma, they make DNA from RNA. Still no protein to RNA or Protein to DNA discovered.
A gene produces a ‘functional RNA transcript’. So shifting from concentrating on one to the other is simply a change in emphasis, not an overturning of the Central Dogma (DNA->RNA->Protein).
THERE IS CODING in the new definition. What is it you think that a ‘functional RNA transcript’ does? It codes for a protein or allows a protein to be made.
As ‘creationsafari’ pointed out, “It remains indisputable that DNA codes for proteins via messenger RNA, and that proteins perform the major structural and functional operations of the cell.”
What function do these ‘functional RNA transcript’s perform besides coding for a protein or allowing a protein to be produced? The assignation of function to the 3% of non-coding DNA that shows evolutionary conservation is purely putative at this point and based entirely upon the supposition of common ancestry and evolutionary conservation of functional sequences.
A gene sequence can clearly be tied to a protein sequence. Change the sequence and the amino acid that it codes for can be changed in a predictable manner. We know exactly which tripled RNA code will specify which amino acid. Information flow is from DNA to RNA to Protein.
It is an interesting finding the sheer amount of regulatory RNA, but it is not NEW. RNA and protein machinery is necessary for replicating DNA, making a RNA message and also for making a protein. This doesn’t make the Central Dogma invalid, or invalidate the concept of genes, it just sheds light on how it is all accomplished.
Fine. For your revised definition of the Central Dogma, it is still valid.
Google “Central Dogma of Molecular Biology” and the very first citation says...
Transcription of DNA to RNA to protein: This dogma forms the backbone of molecular biology and is represented by four major stages.
1. The DNA replicates its information in a process that involves many enzymes: replication.
2. The DNA codes for the production of messenger RNA (mRNA) during transcription.
3. In eucaryotic cells, the mRNA is processed (essentially by splicing) and migrates from the nucleus to the cytoplasm.
4. Messenger RNA carries coded information to ribosomes. The ribosomes “read” this information and use it for protein synthesis. This process is called translation.
Proteins do not code for the production of protein, RNA or DNA.
They are involved in almost all biological activities, structural or enzymatic
I’m sorry. That’s laughable. I quoted the original 1958 paper that originated the term, and you refer to a dumbed-down website where the graphic has a contiguous strand of DNA coding for the protein.
“The central dogma of molecular biology deals with the detailed residue-by-residue transfer of sequential information. It states that such information cannot be transferred back from protein to either protein or nucleic acid.” - Crick, F. (1970): Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. Nature 227, 561-563
Where is this contradicted? Has anyone yet found that information CAN be transfered from protein to protein or from protein to nucleic acid? NO! They have not.
His statement is consistent with the Central Dogma, but it is not the complete central dogma. He is saying that information flow goes from DNA to RNA to Protein; but not from Protein to Protein or from Protein to either DNA or RNA. This is true and is ALSO not overturned by the finding of large amounts of regulatory RNA.
“In 1958, Crick neatly encapsulated the broad outlines of this process in a flow scheme he called the central dogma of molecular biology: DNA directs its own replication and its transcription to yield RNA, which, in turn, directs its translation to form proteins. (Voet and Voet, 2004 Biochemistry Text)
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/C/C/H/_/scbcch.pdf
In this 1970 article Francis Crick says all sorts of interesting things about the Central Dogma as it was known circa 1970. What was known then is still true today, but much much more is known, and much more needs to be known.
The 1970 paper dealt with the DNA -> RNA -> protein process, not a fundamental misunderstanding of the information contained in DNA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.